From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 06:44:08 MDT
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Party of Citizens wrote:
>
> > Selective breeding using the existing gene pool is primarily if not solely
> > responsible for agricultural improvements. It is assumed that the gene
> > pool changes due to mutations but I have never seen proof of this.
> > Until then I would not say that mutation has any proven benefit to
> > agricultural improvement.
>
> You may want to Google on "green revolution" and "dwarf rice".
> I believe that dwarf rice are a result of a mutation in the
> sd1 (semi-dwarf 1) gene. If one doesn't consider the "green
> revolution" an "agricultural improvement" (probably feeding
> millions of more people than would be fed without the sd1
> mutation) then I don't know what would be.
>
> But go ahead... raise the bar a little higher and if I'm
> really ambitious tomorrow I'll see if I can leap over it.
I think I'll lower it and see if you can limbo under.
The green revolution material is a non sequitur. What it gets down to is
this. If transgenics succeeds as it often does, that makes news (science
and general news). For example, there was a gene from fish spliced into
potatoes which made them frost resistant. Then there were the genes from a
portly texas preacher spliced into hogs based on the recomendation of
Fijian natives which made the pork chops much tastier. That too made news.
But I have never seen the expected news report, "Gene mutation induced by
radiation (or mustard gas) at harvard leads to ______________"
POC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 06:57:04 MDT